South Carolina: Jon Huntsman in a tight race with…

posted at 1:20 pm on January 10, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

They may be talking about a possible, last minute Huntsman surge up in New Hampshire, but it would appear that his fortunes may not be on the rise in South Carolina. It would be understandable for the former Ambassador to China to struggle when competing against noted conservative candidates such as Santorum in this race, but he’s apparently also losing to… Stephen Colbert, who isn’t even on the ballot.

Stephen Colbert wanted to sponsor the South Carolina Republican primary. He wanted his name on the ballot and he wanted a referendum about whether corporations are people or only people are people. He was rebuffed in his efforts but our team at PPP decided if he couldn’t get all that stuff on the actual ballot, we could at least poll it for him. Here’s what we found:

Even if Huntsman finishes second in New Hampshire tonight it doesn’t speak well for his prospects down the line that he’s running behind Stephen Colbert.

Colbert actually did try to run for president in 2008, but only in his home state. This time the story was a bit more convoluted. The comedian wasn’t trying to get on the ballot as a candidate. He wanted his name on the ballot, offering the cash strapped state GOP a half million dollars to help pay for the cost of the election if they would rename the event, “The Colbert Super PAC South Carolina Republican Primary.” And for a while it almost looked like it might happen, except he also wanted a referendum question added to the ballot, asking voters if they thought corporations were people, or if only people were people.

The deal fell apart, but as PPP indicates, he may have highlighted a warning sign for Mitt Romney down there.

While Colbert’s prospects for actually winning in South Carolina may have been limited, he would have found support on his proposed referendum. Just 33% of likely voters think that ‘corporations are people’ compared to 67% who think that ‘only people are people.’ Supporters of every Republican candidate believe that ‘only people are people,’ even 66% of Mitt Romney’s whose comments inspired this debate in the first place.

Fortunately, with Colbert off the ballot, Huntsman may find room to expand his appeal and move into the high single digits by next week.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Sorry, Huntsman is an unknown and liberal enough to be cozy with Obama. And once you get that rabid socialist taint on you, there is no going back to associating with decent people again.

I will vote for him if he wins the nomination but I don’t think there is much danger of that. Huntsman has decided to concentrate on introducing himself to a bunch of cranky New Englanders who view their place in the primaries as an entitlement. He’s also come off as arrogant with his attack on Iowans. That and the Obama connection is an awful lot to overcome in a real state with a real primary that matters just 10 days from now.

Hope for a Santy bounce huh?
They don’t want to settle for another Bob Dole either.

KOOLAID2 on January 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Santorum’s worse than Huntsman, though.

Santorum supported Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, voted against Right to Work legislation, and voted to increase the debt-ceiling like 4 times. Huntsman’s not perfect, either, but he’s a lot closer to Reagan’s Jacksonian foreign policy as opposed to Santorum’s Bush/Obama foreign policy.

A Massachusetts libtard has plenty of nerve coming down to South Carolina and trying to turn the primary into an exhibition of ignorance.

Turn this around: if the people of Massachusetts were asked if the second amendment means anyone may own a gun and the government can’t say a thing about it, or does it mean the government can say something like “the gun can only be owned if it has the firing pin removed”, would they poll in favor of the Constitution or not?

How about the Tenth amendment: would they even be willing to recognize it as a part of the Constitution at all?

Hunstman looks like a slick car salesman. Indeed. But he governed as a pretty solid conservative while governor of Utah. He also served in the Reagan administration. He’s been consistently pro-life and pro-gun.

For the like of me I don’t get how on HotAir he is the RINOiest of RINOs yet Romney is a bona fide conservative.

Is serving as Ambassador under Obama really worse than RomneyCare and the mile long list of flip flops? Is a governor of Utah which reliably votes 55-60% Republican really more liberal than the governor of Massachusetts?

With Colbert not on the ticket in SC, the Chinaman will still finish a distant last. If Romney wins SC, I will be surprised. It will pretty much be over if he wins a conservative state like SC.

they lie on January 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM
Wow. No need for the racism, bro.

I did not realize the word “chinaman” was considered an offensive term in modern dictionairies. I equated it with the term “Frenchman”, “Irishman” “Englishman”. I was referring to Huntsman’s use of speaking chinese in Sat. night’s debate in a sarcastic manner and his constant reminders of his being an Ambassador to China .

Thanks for educating me. I am embarassed for not realizing that I was using a term that may be offensive.

Rush has turned on Newt. Compares Newt to Occupiers and repeatedly mention Fannie money. Newt will disintegrate in SC.

andy85719 on January 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

When did speaking the truth mean that you’ve turned on a candidate? I’d characterize it as Newt having another meltdown and attacking capitalism in the very same terms used by the folks sleeping with the rats in DC’s Freedom Plaza. Newt does have a connection with Freddie (not Fannie) that is questionable. And, I think that Newt’s decision to allow these PAC to run the attack ads against Romney is over-the-top spite because he thought himself a shoo-in the few weeks he was polling well in Iowa. Make no mistake all of the above is nothing but a temper tantrum by a sore loser and the sooner he is defeated the better for us all.

Hunstman looks like a slick car salesman. Indeed. But he governed as a pretty solid conservative while governor of Utah. He also served in the Reagan administration. He’s been consistently pro-life and pro-gun.

For the like of me I don’t get how on HotAir he is the RINOiest of RINOs yet Romney is a bona fide conservative.

Is serving as Ambassador under Obama really worse than RomneyCare and the mile long list of flip flops? Is a governor of Utah which reliably votes 55-60% Republican really more liberal than the governor of Massachusetts?

Come on people.

angryed on January 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Amen.

Everyone knows Mitt isn’t a “bona fide” conservative, yet he’s still the front-runner because people assume he’s the most electable (from the comments I’ve read on HotAir over the last several months.)

I say, if everyone wrongfully believes Huntsman’s a RINO, he’s still better than Mitt, anyway.

The reason Huntsman got “B” in Utah because he had to deal with liberals in the legislator.

When you look at a preponderance of their positions they are nuttier than a Ron Paul rally. They have somewhat reasonable ideas mixed in with the same lunacy that makes Pual unfit for office (I want a government that will fight to maintain our way of life not insist that we get out of the way and let our enemies run roughshod over our economy and national security by indirect means). The so-called conservatives they feature are really more the non-interventionist types who argue against war, not for moral reasons but the disruption it causes in the profits of global corporations.

The primaries ultimately come down to building a coalition. I really like Rick Santorum but he is too socially conservative to attract the independent vote (also the reason Ron Paul’s supporters were attacking he and his family last night). Of the candidates out there right now, Romney is perhaps the best one to build a coalition. That is not to say that he is the best candidate for America but there are far too many stupid people who will not vote for a social conservative under any circumstance.

Stephen Colbert wanted to sponsor the South Carolina Republican primary. He wanted his name on the ballot and he wanted a referendum about whether corporations are people or only people are people. He was rebuffed in his efforts but our team at PPP decided if he couldn’t get all that stuff on the actual ballot, we could at least poll it for him.

I’m so glad that PPP is wrestling with the serious issues of our time, and protecting their credibility as a professional polling firm.

And once a group of like minded people band together in an enterprise clearly they lose all free speech rights, and many other rights? Only when acting by yourself with no help do you deserve any rights at all… or something like that.. I guess?

Can someone explain to be why silencing people is a good thing again?

The best counter to bad/stupid talk is more talka totalitarian regime who will silence all dissent.